Quote from: ggroy;756309My main resistance to 5E is primarily to avoid jumping onto a new splatbook treadmill.  It is largely to avoid wasting more time and money on being a "compulsive completionist" of 5E books.

In hindsight, I'm glad I was completely clueless and away on a long hiatus during the time when 3E and the d20 glut was in full force.

That's a valid concern to have. At least to my understanding the model they are trying to do seems to be similar to 2e or Pathfinder then 3x/4e.

Quote from: JeremyR;756303....
OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.

Whether it's a part of or called bounded accuracy or not (someone in this thread says it's not, and I'm not in a position to agree or disagree), that right there is one of the design decisions I like in 5e.  Lower AC and higher hit points means a posse or militia can be dangerous to anything and even the most powerful PC has to be careful of running into too many Kobolds at once.  High ACs mean only powerful individuals out of groups are really a threat.  Whether the actual values reflect the idea once it's done is still to be seen, but I like the idea.

Quote from: JeremyR;756303OTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time?

Not only the armor classes get lowered, also the bonus to hit, so no "you hit all the time".

The point of bounded accuracy is to close the gap between low and high level characters and monsters. Think Rolemaster. In Rolemaster, even a 1st level goblin can kill in one strike a 15th level fighter.

QuoteOTOH, I think bounded accuracy is dumb. You give monsters ton of hit points and then lower their armor class so you hit them all the time? And this single design idea makes 5e stuff largely incompatible with previous editions.

No, the math is much flatter you also lower the to hit values. It's so that low level monsters in groups are a serious danger even to high level characters. Among many other advantages in game and out of course. And from what I have seen only 4e will be a problem in conversion.

With regards to bounded accuracy, personally I'd rather keep HP uniformly low (or incorporate a Wounds/Vitality system, or both) while keeping ACs higher.  A natural 20 always hits, and if even a single arrow or sword-swipe can end a character's life then they have to be careful.

But then, I've never been a fan of the hyper-abstracted "hit points represent blocks and parries" model.

I am not sure why a free PDF of the rules is an "old school" thing? It's a concept that is connected to modern ideas of gaming and first saw light in 3e.

I still think that a copy of the Basic PDF should have been in a box set. Trust new RPGers to get into a game when you provide them everything they need in a single physical product. The idea that new RPGers need a limited "board game" like physical product to capture their interest is a modern concept that I don't agree with.

The Basic PDF being free does help the issue, but it's all still clearly a modern approach to the issue, rather than trusting that the older approach, when D&D was at its most popular, is the better one.

Does this mean that there is nothing WotC can do to convince me? No. The base ruleset of 5e looks OK to me. If they had put Basic in a box set and showed that they trusted RPGs to appeal to new RPGers as a complete physical product, I would have no gripe with them. They would have showed understanding about has always been the true the appeal of RPGs. As it is, it's really just no more than we have been getting since 2000. It's neither new or "old school". Just the same as before.

All this argument has convinced me is that some old school RPGers are so desperate to have an RPG that at least gives them lip service that they will compromise even lot and applaud whatever is dished up to them.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310Take that grognards!"

Yep.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more.  What to do...what to do...

Oh!

I know!

I'll gin up controversy where there is none!  Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.  

Take that grognards!"

I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.

Quote from: The Butcher;756356I came here to post this, mostly. Pundit can take his bullshit "you're with 5e or against 5e" ultimatum and shove it. I'll pass judgement on 5e when I see it, thankyouverymuch.

Pundit's attempt to define victors and losers where there need be none, is what he has built his reputation on.

Quote from: Skywalker;756359Pundit's attempt to define victors and losers where there need be none, is what he has built his reputation on.

I know. It's the Swine thing all over again. "If you play Not RPGs you are collaborating with the Postmodernist plot to destroy Western civilization!"

I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...

  ... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions.

    Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;756363I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...

  ... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions.

    Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae.

:rotfl:

Quote from: RPGPundit;756280As I've posted on my blog, if the latest news about the new D&D Basic and the D&D Starter set don't end up making you admit that the new D&D is making a sufficient old-school effort, then you never ever actually could have been convinced (short of maybe Wizards announcing they're scrapping 5e entirely and will now only release the OD&D booklets in their original form, complete with a rare reproduction of one of Gary Gygax's shopping lists from 1973 so that grognards can speculate as to whether the presence of 'swiss cheese', 'baby wipes' and 'beer' on the list may have in some way influenced the origins of the game).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;756310"Things have quieted down...I painted myself into a corner with a pointless argument that had no merit, after I positioned myself as some kind of '5e guru' because I was a paid 'consultant'...and now the noise has died down and nobody's giving me attention any more.  What to do...what to do...

Oh!

I know!

I'll gin up controversy where there is none!  Fifth edition seems to be have a broad, medium-depth appeal, and they're making good faith efforts, so I'll leap into my forum and try to drum up some nastyness where none exists.  

Take that grognards!"

Pretty much. Is any well-known old-school blogger or personality actually saying "BOO! IHATE 5E!" or is it just people saying "I have this older game I like, and no one's shown me a reason to switch yet"? I wasn't involved in the play test and have mostly been ignoring the 5e development, but some of the things I've seen haven't made me want to play. The unified XP chart with the new lower costs to reach 2nd level is useless to me. The advantage/disadvantage system seems fine, but I notice there are also bonuses and penalties; pick one, doofus. It's got the modern ability bonus inflation. So, if I were to switch to 5e, I'd have to substitute the old XP tables and old ability bonuses, and fix the modififiers. Why not just keep playing what I'm playing?

And I'm sorry, but someone saying " the basic D&D PDF is inspired by Rules Cyclopedia " means nothing to me, and not just because I never used the Rules Cyclopedia. "Inspired" could mean practically anything. Inspired by the format? Inspired by the concept of a single gamebook? Until we actually see the book, we don't know. Hell, I'm sure some of the story game faux-school dungeon games probably claim the Rules Cyclopedia, too.

I like the fact that there will be a version of D&D that is free. I'll certainly check it out. But I chalk up the "anti-anti-5e" hysteria to the typical RPG geek rule that everyone must be hyper enthusiastic about every upcoming product at all times. The tiniest lack of commitment means you are a HATER.

Cause nothing says "old school" quite like ...

A rulebook based on a rulebook released in 1991.
An adventure based on an adventure released in 1986
A 10th level fighter getting killed by kobolds

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;756363I admit, there's a large part of me that wants to see 5E be a towering success ...

  ... where the vast majority of the new players use it to play High Romantic Fantasy, 'storygaming'-style, post-Gygaxian AD&D style games in the Dragonlance and 2E traditions.

    Of course, I favor that style anyway, so the ironic reversal and probable apoplectic collapse of the Pundit would be just the cherry on the sundae.

+1000

(Given that must be my preferred style given I love Dragonlance as a setting and White Wolf/Onyx Path games).